Canon is boring.

tkbslc wrote in post #13108128
There you go, S100 announced today. Looks kinda cool. Canon not boring this month.

Meh, except it is slower than the S90/S95 across all overlapping focal lengths. We shall see if the new sensor makes up for this.

themadman wrote in post #13108136
Meh, except it is slower than the S90/S95 across all overlapping focal lengths.

Do we know that? Can you link or post to the aperture vs focal length breakdown if you do?

Towards bottom of page, see the table S100 Vs S95
http://www.dpreview.co​m/previews/canons100/p​age3.asp

tkbslc wrote in post #13108167
Do we know that? Can you link or post to the aperture vs focal length breakdown if you do?

mzondeki wrote in post #13108781
Towards bottom of page, see the table S100 Vs S95
http://www.dpreview.co​m/previews/canons100/p​age3.asp

^^ That

Wow, this thread has brought out a bunch of sourpusses. "Cameras aren't exciting . . . it's what you do with them that matters." Give me a break. Canon's DSLR unit exists solely to make us salivate over new and exciting cameras and lenses. And they haven't been doing much of that lately. And honestly, I disagree with those who say "what I have got is good enough, I don't have any need for upgrade." Does your digital camera make as nice an image as your old film camera did? Because mine doesn't.

Where are the advances in sensor technology? How about higher dynamic range? How about better high iso performance? How about sharper images? My 5DMKii could use a boost in all of these areas. How about the ability to AEB more than three images in a row? How long has HDR been popular? Yet most of Canon's bodies still can't AEB more than three images? Ridiculous, especially since all it would take is a firmware update to accomplish this.

Looking forward to see some true innovation from Canon on the camera body front to validate the amount of money I have invested in their lenses.

Avadia wrote in post #13112651
Looking forward to see some true innovation from Canon on the camera body front to validate the amount of money I have invested in their lenses.

You mean up until now you've only bought lenses in the hope that one day they would bring out a decent body?

Don't get me wrong, they could always improve, but people should really gain some perspective in the whole gearheaddery department. My images from DSLR's are already miles ahead of any film shot I've ever taken.
You're talking about more than 3 steps AEB, but the whole technique of bracketing and HDR is innovation they've already done. How about video? There's been plenty of innovation in the last 10 years.

Besides the obvious incremental improvements I'd like to see in dynamic range, high ISO / low noise (and noiseless shadows), the only thing I'd really like to see from Canon is a new flash system. The current one doesn't do it for me the way Nikon's CLS does, and even that has major flaws.

TweakMDS wrote in post #13112782
You mean up until now you've only bought lenses in the hope that one day they would bring out a decent body?

If you look at my sig, you can see I have three canon bodies. Obviously, glass is important and is a big investment. Once you have made that investment, you want the best body you can shoot with. You want that body to be able to produce the best pictures possible and to make it easier on you as a photographer. I find their technological evolution of bodies and sensors to be painfully slow. I am hoping the next 5D body and 1DS body will be worth the money in that regard.

TweakMDS wrote in post #13112782
My images from DSLR's are already miles ahead of any film shot I've ever taken.

Then you must shoot subjects with very limited dynamic range in very good light. Few digital sensors can match film for dynamic range, sharpness, and higher iso performance.

TweakMDS wrote in post #13112782
You're talking about more than 3 steps AEB, but the whole technique of bracketing and HDR is innovation they've already done.

I am talking about the ability to auto exposure bracket more than three frames in a row. If I am shooting an HDR sequence, I may need to bracket five, seven, or even nine frames in order to capture the full dynamic range of the scene, but Canon limits me to three frames. How hard would it be for Canon to offer this simple feature? A simple firmware update should do it. Instead, I had to buy a $200 add on from another company to achieve this. That is ridiculous!

TweakMDS wrote in post #13112782
How about video? There's been plenty of innovation in the last 10 years.

I could care less about video. IF I wanted video, I would buy a video camera. I am a still picture shooter and I want a solid tool for that purpose. It really bugs me that they spend so much time and effort updating video features while ignoring the needs of still picture shooters on their DSLRs! Drop the video features completely and give me higher dynamic range, no AA filter, and high iso performance and I will be a happy camper.

TweakMDS wrote in post #13112782
Besides the obvious incremental improvements I'd like to see in dynamic range, high ISO / low noise (and noiseless shadows), the only thing I'd really like to see from Canon is a new flash system. The current one doesn't do it for me the way Nikon's CLS does, and even that has major flaws.

Agree about the flash system. I have never been happy with the performance of my Canon flash system.

Avadia wrote in post #13114950
Then you must shoot subjects with very limited dynamic range in very good light. Few digital sensors can match film for dynamic range, sharpness, and higher iso performance.

Huh? Film, shot and processed correctly, has better DR...but sharpness is arguable and high ISO is an undeniable win for digital. At least from a grain/noise perspective; obviously there are other considerations.

cptrios wrote in post #13115183
Huh? Film, shot and processed correctly, has better DR...but sharpness is arguable and high ISO is an undeniable win for digital. At least from a grain/noise perspective; obviously there are other considerations.

Disagree. Unless you go medium format, sharpness is greater with film than digital, mostly due to the sensor technology and need for AA filter over the sensor. And film still gives better high iso performance than Canon's current digital cameras. Nikon has done decidedly better in this area with their recent cameras, and I hope Canon does better with their next ones. Sounds like Digic V brings some needed improvement in this area.

Avadia wrote in post #13116409
Disagree. Unless you go medium format, sharpness is greater with film than digital, mostly due to the sensor technology and need for AA filter over the sensor. And film still gives better high iso performance than Canon's current digital cameras. Nikon has done decidedly better in this area with their recent cameras, and I hope Canon does better with their next ones. Sounds like Digic V brings some needed improvement in this area.

Well like I said, sharpness is debatable - I've personally only seen one film that consistently delivers sharpness results better than a 5D2 or an M9, and it's a very difficult film to use (Adox CMS 20). However, in perfect conditions (including capture and development), there are a few others that can manage this as well. Don't want to push this thread any further off track, so I'll just leave this here:

A Flickr shot taken on Fuji Natura 1600, a fairly new and "low-grain" ISO 1600 film. Literally every current DSLR (and mirrorless) camera produces less grainy results at 1600 than this. Neopan 1600 does better, but it's B&W. Now, is the film grain more pleasant? Quite possibly, but that's not the question! (I actually like my Samsung NX100 a lot because even though its high ISO quality is poor in comparison to many of its peers, the noise is very filmy looking.)

cptrios wrote:
=cptrios;13116576A Flickr shot taken on Fuji Natura 1600, a fairly new and "low-grain" ISO 1600 film. Literally every current DSLR (and mirrorless) camera produces less grainy results at 1600 than this.

Perhaps you are referring to the digital file after noise suppression has been applied to it. Because the RAW files out of my 5D2 at ISO 1600 and before noise suppression is applied look easily as bad or worse than this pic.

Regardless, I think the real point to be made is that they can do better (as evidenced by the Nikon D3S ISO performance), and Canon is decidedly behind the curve. Looking forward to some newer Canon bodies that offer resolution, dynamic range, and high-iso improvements.

That's not a 100% crop. My pocket camera with a 1/2.3" CMOS barely has that much noise for a 1024px image at ISO 1600

tkbslc wrote in post #13135626
That's not a 100% crop. My pocket camera with a 1/2.3" CMOS barely has that much noise for a 1024px image at ISO 1600

Does your pocket cam shoot RAW? Or are you talking about a JPEG image that has had noise reduction applied? Noise reduction is a software fix after the fact, that lessens sharpness. I am talking about sensor technology, i.e. what is the RAW image off the sensor capable of. We could take a film image, scan it in, and apply noise reduction software to it as well, if we wanted to, and it would reduce the grain to a large extent. But if we are going to compare film to digital sensors in an apples to apples comparison, we have to take the software fixes out of the picture and compare the RAW sensor data to the film image.

Honestly, I think the software companies are leaps and bounds ahead of the camera companies with their noise reduction technologies. Sensor tech development seems to be plodding along at a very slow pace compared to software development. But make no mistake about it, noise reduction and initial sharpening are software developments used to compensate for inadequate sensor technology. Neither should be necessary once sensor technology is mature, and dynamic range shouldn't be an issue either.

Avadia wrote in post #13135320
Perhaps you are referring to the digital file after noise suppression has been applied to it. Because the RAW files out of my 5D2 at ISO 1600 and before noise suppression is applied look easily as bad or worse than this pic.

Then there's something wrong with your 5D2! Or perhaps you're using some kind of wonky RAW-processing software? In all honesty, ISO 1600 RAWs from my 5D2 look significantly better than most ISO 400 films I've used. But again, I'm talking sheer noise/grain levels, not subjective aesthetic quality.

Incidentally, the D3S achieves that performance by applying software noise reduction even to RAW files. That's not to say it isn't impressive, because it definitely is...but the story just isn't all that simple.

Avadia wrote in post #13135821
Does your pocket cam shoot RAW?

my S90 did! I was talking about the ELPH 100HS though.

I'd find some crops and pictures to post, but I don't think you are being serious here. There's just no question that film has more grain except at very low ISO.